CB HI

Well it has been fun this afternoon but it is time to start the commute home, so thanks to mulveyr and twobadfish for jumping in and proving my point.

Carusoswi

'If it is raining out they need to slow down.' OK, how much should they slow down. To what speed. Is it road specific? Posted speed limit specific? Simply weather specific? What? On a clear, calm night, where the posted speed limit is 50 mph, what speed is legal for a motorist? 50 MPH or some other subjective speed that is amply slow so as to allow the motorist to avoid any and all that may cross his/her path?

I remember back in Ohio (don't know if they still do it), the speed limit signs on the freeways were designed to show one speed during the day, and a reduced speed at night.

Is it your contention that a motorist, observing posted speed limits on a night when driving conditions are otherwise normal, when the only limitation is nature's darkness, is compelled to self-determine a safe operating speed at or below posted limits so as to accurately predict the speed at which he/she can safely avoid collision with any and all obstacles or traffic which may cross his/her path?

If that is your contention, then I challenge you to explain how and by what means a motorist is to arrive at that safe-speed calculation.

We all depend upon signage for our navigational purposes. If there is a 'curve to the right' sign, we anticipate and expect to navigate a curve to the right.

If that sign includes an advisory mph speed, we rely upon that advice to gauge our speed into the curve.

If on a clear night, the posted speed is 50 mph, then, I expect that I can safely proceed at that speed.

I do not expect to be held liable for collision with any other vehicle encountered when I am operating at that speed and a collision is not avoidable, period.

Your notion that I should, by some magical, subjective means have mitigated my speeds in consideration of conditions unfavorable to the other vehicle is faulty and illogical.

It reads well, sounds good, but does not work in real life.

In my state, I drive at night on the freeways at the posted limit of 65 mph all the time, day or night, without concern that I am overrunning my nighttime vision.

On roads where access is not limited, I drive at the posted limit, day or night, with equal lack of concern.

When adverse weather conditions exist, I mitigate my speed, to be sure, but that modulation has more to do with controlling my car than concern for the pedestrian or cyclist who may be crossing my path.

As I have stated on other threads (well, at least one other), I cycle and I drive. So, I like to think that I see both sides of the coin. But, this notion that the operator of a motor vehicle is always assumed to be wrong (by members of the cycling community) when there occurs a collision between a motor vehicle and a cyclist has me concerned . . . concerned that I am damned if I do or if I don't (but especially if I do) as concerns driving a motor vehicle.

If I follow what I perceive to be your logic, then, there is no road litigiously safe upon which I may operate a motor vehicle at night at speeds posted to be legal. If I strike a pedestrian or cyclist, no matter that they are unlit, dressed in black, whatever, according to you, I should have anticipated their presence and moderated my driving method to avoid a collision with them.

As devoted as I am to cycling and cycling interests, I cannot buy into this logic.

Respectfully,

Caruso

KD5NRH

It's specific to the operator's ability and visibility. A prudent speed under any conditions is one where the driver can come to a safe and complete stop for an unlighted stationary obstacle in the roadway.

That's pretty much the law around here. It's also not that hard to do with a little common sense, or a little experimentation; just try to stop in the distance your headlights and the terrain allow you to see. If you can't do it, you were going too fast.

By not being a moron.

Anticipation is not the same as blind, stupid faith. If you see a curve right sign, will you go right, even if the road doesn't?

I'm sure that will make it all better when you run over someone's child because you couldn't stop in the distance you could see.

mulveyr 

Very well stated. But as I'm sure you're finding out, the average A&S commenter lives in a completely black-and-white world that allows for no possible explanation other than that the motorist is always at fault. Undoubtedly these same people have never had a flat or run over a pothole on their bike, because they are completely and totally in control of all of their equipment, and, indeed, the entire environment, while they're riding, and expect the same from others.

Also, I bet they're a lot of fun at parties.

Digital_Cowboy

If according to you lighting isn't the only way to achieve this what would you suggest?

BarracksSi

Exact-o-mundo.

oban_kobi

Digital_Cowboy

Slow enough so that they have ample space in which to stop given the road conditions. If you check the law in I believe all 50 states, there are clauses that make it clear that a driver is responsible for operating his or her vehicle at a safe and reasonable speed for the given conditions. What speed that may be, I do not know. But should be slow enough that when they hit their brakes that they stop and do NOT slide more then a couple of inches. If it is raining and they are traveling at 50MPH and they hit their brakes and slide 2 or 3 feet then guess what, they are going TOO fast for the circumstances.

And what is wrong with that?

As has been said, if you read the speed laws in most if not all 50 states they make it clear that it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the driver to operate his/her vehicle in a manner that is safe under the given conditions. Which is why most streets have streetlights, and drivers are still required to have their headlights on. As streetlights do not cancel out a motorists responsibility to have working headlights on his or her car.

By not driving so fast that they cannot stop when applying the brakes. Again if it is raining and it takes them several feet to slide to a stop then they are going too fast. If it is dark out, and other then their headlights there is no other illumination, i.e. streetlights, stars, moon then guess what they need to slow down.

That is true, but those navigational signs, have also been known to be in error. IF there is a navigational sign indicating a right curve is coming up, but the city or state has erected a barricade blocking said curve for whatever reason, that there is a right curve sign does NOT mean that motorists can run into the barricade.

And if I am not mistaken, most curves, S-curves, etc. do have those types of advisory signs. And yet as we see time-and-time again people go through those curves at speeds that are faster then safe.

The problem with that “logic” is that conditions DO change. And just because when the sign was erected that it was safe to travel at 50MPH that doesn’t mean that it’s going to stay that way.

Even though the law clearly states that you as the operator of a motor vehicle is responsible for your actions behind the wheel regardless of what a navigational sign says? Why do you think that a cop directing traffic takes priority over a stop light/sign?

No, again, if you read the law in most if not every state it is expected of motorists. And again it is the responsibility of the driver to operate his or her motor vehicle in a safe manner. If the driver of a motor vehicle cannot stop in time to avoid a collision. Then guess what they are guilty of operating said motor vehicle in an unsafe manner. How hard of a concept is that?

Then please explain why it is the law that a driver of a motor vehicle is suppose to operate said motor vehicle in a safe and responsible manner?

If when you are out driving your car you do not have concern for the pedestrian or cyclist who may cross your path, then I feel sorry for whatever pedestrian or cyclist that may cross your path.

I’m sure that you are by now aware that that IS how it is over in most European countries. And that even IF the cyclist/pedestrian is a fault that more likely then not the fault for the crash rests squarely on the shoulders of the motor vehicle operator.

If I follow what I perceive to be your logic one would presume that weather/light/road conditions do not matter and that if a driver hits a cyclist or pedestrian all they have to do is to say “it was too dark/rainy and I didn’t see the cyclist or pedestrian so therefore it isn’t my fault that I hit them.”

twobadfish

Reflective clothing, reflectors mounted on the bicycle. Generally speaking, for my own safety - since I commute a lot and don't consider myself as visible as ideally possible - if conditions warrant it I will take what I consider a safer route. There are a few sections of road around here that are completely unlit, hilly, and a little windy. The speed limit is only 30-35mph but I'm still reluctant to travel it at night except in the best lit evenings by a bright moon.

I think there are a lot of ways to avoid a driver hitting a cyclist - all of which aren't dependent on the driver. You can't assume that under all conditions a driver will be able to see a cyclist. As ideal and convenient it is to put all responsibility on drivers - it's not realistic. And further more I don't think there is any accident that is ever completely black and white or easy to determine fault without video like this.

And my only contention is that this video is pretty clear indication that it is possible for cyclists to put themselves in situations that make it difficult or impossible for a collision to be avoided. And without video or witnesses there shouldn't be anyone making fierce claims about how careless and at fault the driver was.

Digital_Cowboy

Back at the beginning of December, I was riding home from my bank. I was at an intersection not too far from my home. The intersection from my direction of travel was divided into three lanes. The right most was a right turn only lane, the center was for through traffic, and the left most was a left turn only lane. As I was going straight I was logically in the center through lane, I was also the first vehicle at the light. When a gal in a van/SUV pulls up along side of me in the left turn lane. And says, "You know you're hard to see?"

At the time I had two 3-LED Cat Eye blinkies on my bike attached to my seat stays. I was also wearing a reflective safety vest, and a blinking/reflective Planet Bike ankle strap.

My response to her was "That's why I have the vest and lights." What I didn't say to her was that if she couldn't see my vest and lights that it is time that she consider turning in her drivers license. As I intentionally do everything that I can to be as visible as possible.

I have since added a third 5-LED Cat Eye blinkie to my bike.

Everyone who has seen my vest, and blinkies, have agreed that if this gal couldn't see me that she needs to get off of the road. As about the only way that I could have been more visible would have been if I was in a cage.

Speaking of taking steps to make ourselves more visible to motorists, does anyone on here have any experience with Cat Eye's Orbit?

CB HI

But fierce official claims about the driver's innocence by police before any real investigation is performed is the worst of all situations.

The answer to better cyclist visibility over active lighting is not reflectors and better moonlight!

twobadfish

"Fierce official claims"? Nobody is making fierce official claims proclaiming his innocence. There just isn't ANY evidence that the driver was at fault. There is a difference between saying "there is no evidence that he was at fault" and "he's guilty regardless of the lack of evidence".

It's not even "he may have been at fault"... it's an irrefutable "he was at fault".

It can't be...

The driver may have been at fault and the cyclist may have been able to exercise better judgement.

? It's either/or for you?

CB HI

This cross threading is bad on your part and confuses the discussion.

In the other thread you are trying to discuss here:

The police immediately releasing an official statement that 'distracted driving did not play any part in the accident' speaks volumes to their bias. How do they know what the driver was doing unless they were in the car watching him?

As to this thread, many here have clearly stated the cyclist was at fault, but you somehow try to equate the two incidents to blame the cyclist in both cases.

CB HI

The position that many are taking 'If a motorist is operating a motor vehicle at a speed that the are unable to stop that vehicle to prevent hitting a stopped object in the road, then they are speeding for existing conditions (a violation of law) or operating the vehicle recklessly (also a violation of law)' is proper.

They even use to teach that in drivers ed. Just because you and many of the current cops out there ignore proper driving practices does not make them either correct or excusable.

BarracksSi

Where's the pizza smiley?

Carusoswi

I can guarantee you that there are plenty of roadways with speed limits at or above 45 mph where an unlit stationary obstacle in the roadway will not be visible soon enough so that the operator of a motor vehicle will see it, recognize it, and react in sufficient time so as to avoid a collision.

I once hit a deer with my car. It was nighttime on a freeway where the speed limit was 65 mph. The weather was clear, the roadway dry, a full moon shown overhead. I was driving 65 mph. You would have me cited for that crash. According to you, no one should drive 65 mph on such a road at night. I get it.



Again, if you, yourself, have actually carried out this experiment, you would be more aware of the implications of your statement. I bet there are very few cars that can come to a stop from 65 mph in the distance illuminated by their headlights even on dry pavement . . . and I would dare say there are even fewer bikes that can come close to stopping from any speed above 12 mph in the distance illuminated by their headlamps. Have you ever tried stopping your bike from, say, 20 mph in the distance illuminated by your headlamp(s). Do you adhere to your own advice regarding speed when riding your bike at night?



This statement is a huge contribution to reasoned discussion of the thread topic.



No, but my expectation, conditioned by years of exposure to and reliance upon such sign-age would cause me to anticipate a turn to the right. Depending upon the exact circumstances, I expect that I would be able to avoid turning right off the road. If, on the other hand, the road turned sharply and contradictorily left, I'm not so certain I could react in time to avoid an accident.



I have read many an account of accidents involving children who dart between parked cars out into the street only to be struck by a passing motorist with tragic consequences. In a good many of those accidents, the driver's only contribution to the accident was simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. By your measure, each of those drivers was guilty of operation too fast for conditions. Clearly, by your standards, even though the posted speed limit may be 25 mph, these drivers are guilty because, given the proximity of residential housing in the area, and the possibility that there might be children living in those houses who might, on occasion, run out into the street, then, a truly prudent driver would never exceed a speed of 5 mph, especially if traversing the area during nighttime hours. That sort of driving is indicated by your position, but is simply not practiced in real world situations.

If a cyclist crashes while descending a steep grade at speed because of a squirrel jumping into his/her spokes, is the cyclist to blame? I have witnessed such wipe outs at various speeds, some fast, some slow. What speed would have been a safe speed in that situation?

When I ride at speed on my bike, I know that my speed exceeds my ability to stop within my field of vision all the time, day or night. At speed on a bike, one doesn't see so well (I admit, I've never tried goggles on a bike), so, any time I'm going over 15 mph or so, I am exceeding that safety formula of yours. Do you suggest that no cyclist should ever exceed 15 mph unless wearing goggles or a visor, or does your formula only apply to motor vehicles, cyclists, by definition, never being involved in collisions with stationary objects or other humans?

Fortunately, your attempts at hyperbole do not alter my life's experience behind/over the wheel. I don't know if you actually drive a motor vehicle or not, but, as I have stated, I both cycle (3500 +/- m/yr) and drive (60k +/- m/yr), and, having done so over a long period of time, can assure you that I am not reckless, nor do I advocate for driving habits that demean cyclists, abridge their rights, or place them in danger. On the other hand, I appreciate from experience the safety limitations inherent in operating a motor vehicle. Safe and prudent operation will prevent many, perhaps most accidents, but, whether you care to believe it or not, some accidents are, actually, unavoidable, whether you are operating a bike or a motor vehicle. That you do not or choose not to see both sides of this issue does not alter that fact.

Respectfully,

Caruso

Carusoswi

C'mon, Digital, are you trying to be comical? Go back and read what you just wrote (have wrotten, LOL). When 'they' hit their brakes, they should stop without sliding more than a couple of inches. That's what you are saying. Otherwise, according to you, 'they' are going too fast.

Really!

Of what vehicle are you aware that can stop from 50 mph and not slide more than a coupe of inches . . . oh, I get it, you have not specified the distance in which the non-slide stop has to be accomplished. Give me a mile, and I can stop my vehicle on any day, under any conditions, without sliding even one quarter of an inch. Ah, but who should be concerned with such detail in this debate?



Nothing. Nothing at all.

Most streets may have headlights, but most rural roads remain unlit, and what connection this has to laws requiring safe operation escapes me.



Hmm. Several feet? Slide to a stop? To what sort of vehicle do you refer, Digital? Some virtual machine in a 'Means Streets' computer game?

Well, I imagine they can run into the barricade if they really so desire, although they probably will not be happy with the results.


. . . and some make it through safely, and others crash even though they are driving well below the advised speed. It is all relative. There are good drivers and bad drivers. Oh, and the limits suggested by those advisory signs are really on the conservative side.


So, what is one to do, then? Ignore the speed limit signs, drive at half the posted speed? Perhaps, before actually driving a stretch of roadway, one should drive it ahead of time so as to assess the relative accuracy of the posted speed limit signs, but, of course, that is impossible, is it not. Basically, I have to assume that your position is that it simply is not safe to travel, especially in a motor vehicle. Since most cyclists cannot attain/maintain 50 mph, it is probably safe for them to rely upon the posted limit.

'cause he can arrest me! (LOL)

It is really a hard concept when stated so dogmatically. The motorist's speed is but one of many variables that enable or prohibit him/her from stopping in time to avoid a collision.

I am plumb speechless.



I do have concern, so you needn't fell sorry.

Nope, I'm not aware 'by now', but, then again, I don't live or ride or drive 'over in most European countries', and, if it is truly as you describe, I doubt I'll be riding or driving 'over there' anytime soon.



You didn't read the above in any of my posts on this thread, Digital, nor are you following my logic. The question in my mind is whether your failure to follow my logic is or is not voluntary.

Fortunately, it matters little for either of us.

Caruso